Tag Archives: assault weapons

Swallowing his words

Congresscreep Eric Swallow Swalwell [CA-15] is a coward. A not-very-bright coward.

Not bright, based upon his little confiscation screed:

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

I say he is a coward because he hides from criticism. I attempted to write to his office with some pointed questions about his grand plan to disarm America. I had to look up a zip code within his district to get past his filter (he doesn’t want to hear from nonconstituents). But because I want answers to my questions, I gave my real — non-California-because-I’m-sane — address.

Rejected. He really doesn’t want to hear from nonconstituents. I’ve written to a lot of congresscritters for other states, and this is the first time I couldn’t get through at all.  If he’s going to call for national human/civil rights violations, he should man up and take national feedback.

So if any of our readers are still trapped in his district in Occupied California, please send this to him. And feel free to give him my email address.

Mr. Swalwell,

RE: Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress, May 3, 2018
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/03/ban-assault-weapons-buy-them-back-prosecute-offenders-column/570590002/

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.”

A few questions:

1. “Military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.” Can you name a single country on the planet that uses semiautomatic rifles as standard issue to its regular troops? It’s something of a hobby of mine, and I haven’t been able to find a nation with standard issue semiautomatic rifles since the 1990s. In fact, other than some specialty cases (snipers, for instance), semiautomatic rifles are not considered suitable for combat by national militaries. So what makes these “military-style”?

2. Darned few people are going to be willing to give up firearms, costing up to several thousand dollars, for a paltry $200-$1000. I seem to recall a Fifth Amendment that mentions something about “just compensation.” But hey, post-Kelo, who cares about justice, right?

3. Have you floated your little confiscation plan by working cops? Not political appointees, or other chairwarmers, but the working guys who would have to go kicking in millions* of doors BECAUSE the occupants are well-armed?
(* 60,000,000 is a conservative estimate of gun owners; if only 90% complied, you’d have to send your jackboots after 6,000,000 — six million — noncompliant sonsabitches with guns. When the California legislature considered this in the 1990s, the head of one police union predicted the largest outbreak of blue-flu in history.)

4. Will you personally lead an entry team on confiscation raids, or are you too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is? Put up, or shut up.

You talk a brave game, but HOW do you plan to do this?

There are, by varying estimates, 55,000,000 to 120,000,000 million gun owners in America. Estimates of the firearms they hold range from 265,000,000 to 750,000,000 — three quarters of a billion. No one knows who all those owners are, much less where. Ditto with the guns (estimates of AR-pattern rifles alone, manufactured since the end of the “Assault Weapon Ban”, are in the neighborhood of 16,000,000; just one type of “assault weapon” by the usual politician definition).

You’re from California; you should know what happened when the state merely mandated registration (not confiscation): a whopping 2.33% compliance rate. Connecticut got 13.44%.

Again using that 60,000,000 number, imagine you reverse the compliance ratios and get 90%, leaving those 6,000,000 pesky noncompliant SOBs. Heavily armed SOBs.

The FBI estimates the number of law enforcement personnel in America (local, state, federal) at 698,460. You’re outnumbered by almost 9 to 1. So you toss in all military personnel (who also tend to be gun owners… oops); active, reserve, guard…

And you’re still outnumbered by more than 2 to 1.

5. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE your little police state wet dream? With what?

You like the Australian example. You might note that after 22 years and multiple amnesties, the Australian government now estimates compliance at 20%. And they have more guns now, than before the grab.

6. Are you crazy, stupid, or both?

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger
Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more
www.bussjaeger.org
NRA delenda est
http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=4493


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Lawyers Amok

I live in the area, so I’ve been hearing these guys’ radio ads for years. They’re personal injury lawyers; I have no idea if they have any criminal law experience (as lawyers) at all. They certainly don’t seem to have any firearms experience.

Jacksonville law firm running ads targeting assault weapon sales
A well-known Jacksonville law firm has sponsored a series of controversial television ads calling for a ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Attorneys with Barnes & Cohen told News4Jax that they don’t care if the trio of ads cost them business, because the message the commercials convey is too important.

[…]

Gun rights attorney Eric Friday said he believes the premise of the Barnes & Cohen ads is wrong, saying the AR-15 is not a weapon used by the military.

He argued the ads are politically motivated.

“Personal injury lawyers, as a general rule, vote Democrat,” Friday said. “I see this as nothing more than a campaign ad for the Democratic party to oppose a particular Republican senator.”

I strongly suspect their real motivation is monetary, that this is an appeal to Parkland students “traumatized” by being somewhere on campus during the shooting.

But you know me. I had to send them an email.

“Enough is enough. Assault weapons are weapons of war. A hunter needs a rifle, a shotgun, not an AR- 15,” Barnes says in the ad.

I would like to note a few points.

1. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon” in the state of Florida. You’ll need to define it before you can ban it.

2. There is a no nation in the world which generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops, because they are NOT considered suitable for general combat operations. Most nations phased them out in the 1950s and ’60s. A couple of impoverished third world nations finally scraped up the money to shift to assault rifles (not “assault weapons”) in the 1990s.

3.

“The AR-15 is designed for one purpose — to deliver maximum killing power to our military in harm’s way,” Cohen says in the ad. “I don’t need one, and neither do you.”

Then why do the police carry them? Is it their job to kill the maximum number of citizens?

I think you need to learn alittle more about the subject. I reccommend this “Gun Culture Primer” as a starting point:
http://zelmanpartisans.com/?page_id=2710

I would be happy to answer questions.

And I got an answer from Glenn Cohen.

Hi carl

Read your email with interest and respect

the AR 15 is the same as a M16

it was named that way for obvious reasons

my nephew is a swat team member and carries one

he refers to it as a weapon of war

however I will read up on the subject

tks

do you own one??

Glenn

Judges must find his legal briefs a joy to read, with that lack of capitalization and punctuation.

But that beg another response.

On 03/28/2018 06:58 PM, G COHEN wrote:
> Hi carl
>
> Read your email with interest and respect
>
> the AR 15 is the same as a M16

As a military veteran who carried an M-16 for several years, former peace officer, private security officer, and informed citizen, I can assure you that the AR-15 IS NOT the same.

> it was named that way for obvious reasons

“Armalite Rifle”? That’s what “AR” stands for, you know. After the original company’s name.

> my nephew is a swat team member and carries one

Carries one what? Is it a semiautomatic AR-15, or a select-fire M-16?

> he refers to it as a weapon of war

Sounds like he has the select-fire military rifle. Not an AR-15.

> do you own one??

Do you own any valuables you’d like to tell me about?

Why would I tell a stranger what valuables I might have?

And as I typed this, another email from Cohen.

how right you are!! should not have inquired

We can disagree with respect

thanks for your respect

I was polite; not the same thing as respect. I find it difficult to gin up much respect for a personal injury lawyer who calls for the mass violation of human/civil rights, based on admitted ignorance. Note that he didn’t answer any of my questions, nor did I expect him to do so.

Yes, we disagree. But my position that AR-15s are not the same as M-16s is based on objective physical reality. As best I can tell, his is based on rainbow unicorn farts. Politics aside, this is not a lawyer I’d want representing me in court.

I felt the need to send one more email, but not to Cohen. That inquiry about whether I own an AR — “do you own one??” — bothered me. Was he hoping to pretend I told him I have a gun in a threatening manner so he could sic the cops on me, or sue? So I forwarded Cohen’s email to the Florida Bar Center for Professionalism with a simple question of my own.

To: jhaston@floridabar.org
Subject: Why is a Florida attorney asking me this?

Why is Glenn Cohen of Barnes & Cohen, with whom I have no legal relationship of any kind, asking what expensive property I might own?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Assault Weapons” Ban of 2018, Part who-the-heck-knows-anymore

Here we go yet-a-fricking-gain.

Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons
Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) formally introduced a bill on Monday to ban assault weapons.

Here are the relevant definitions from the bill:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:”

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.”

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:”

Plus the usual long list of specific arms regardless of cosmetic characteristics.

Please note that these “assault weapons” need not actually have any of those additional characteristics, only the “capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following.” Could you mount a forward grip? Could you replace the barrel with a threaded one?

Of course, these clowns aren’t quite ready for the next revolution. They’ve grandfathered arms possessed by the cutoff date, because they bloody well know that they can’t quite get an outright ban without too many dead confiscation squad cops; cops who’ll refuse their suicidally unconstitutional orders. But that’s OK.

This is just Pelosi’s slippery slope. They expect an outright ban on the tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) of arms later, once they think they’ve conditioned us to accept it.

No. Your move, tyrant-wannabes.

Brian Anderson, writing at DownTrend.com, thinks, “This proposed legislation has zero chance of even reaching a vote. Republicans, who are in charge in Congress and respect the Constitution, are not going to let this war on our rights out of committee.”

I think Anderson needs to lose the rose-colored glasses. There isn’t more than a tiny handful of Republican’s who aren’t police-state cheerleaders. My guess is that this, or one of the similar “bans” currently on offer can pass.

But “good luck” with implementing that, and getting honest Americans to play “fair”.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

GOP Baseball Shooting: “More Laws!”

If one were to take early reporting seriously (which I haven’t done for decades), some angry white guy — probably a right-wing white supremacist — shot a bunch of congressmen with a full-auto M4 assault rifle. The asshole took advantage of Virginia’s “lax” gun laws to get and carry his assault rifle.

Umm… Not so much. One, maybe two congressmen. One, maybe two cops. One, maybe two staffers. Maybe a lobbyist. Reports on that still vary.

CNN would have us believe the — oops, rabid left-wing Bernie supporter — used a Chinese knock-off of the AK-47.

Oops redux. Again, not so much. Now it was an SKS.


Note the subtle differences between this and the AK-47 and M4.

So he had an IL FOID (background check), possibly a CCW (background check), and bought his 3 guns from an Illinois FFL (background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period). He used a knock-off of a WW2-era semi-auto rifle (apparently with a 10-round fixed magazine, since it was Illinois legal. Heck, it might even still be California legal. Not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle.

I can hardly bear waiting for the calls for laws that wouldn’t have stopped this. Oh. Wait.

I didn’t have to wait.

But I apparently will have to wait on national reciprocal carry while Congress addresses DC reciprocal carry only for our betters masters congresscreeps

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Poll: The Next 2A Supreme Court Case

AK-74There have been several Supreme Court events pertaining to the Second Amendment during the past year.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The Court also refused to hear a challenge to the Connecticut “assault” weapons ban that outlaws many popular semi-automatic rifles, in effect allowing the ban to stand.

This year the Court also overturned a Massachusetts decision that determined that stun guns were not covered by the Second Amendment, siding instead with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.

In recent years, we’ve also seen Supreme Court victories such as Heller and MacDonald, so the Court’s Second Amendment record has been somewhat mixed.

Given what we know, which Second Amendment case would you like to see the Supreme Court take on next? Do you trust it to impartially rule on any gun-related issue?

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

here’s what the nra just endorsed for president

The NRA just endorsed Donald Trump for president at its national convention.

This is what they endorsed.

 

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Q: Do you support the California law allowing judges to confiscate someone’s gun if they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others?

A: This is something to look into–people with mental health problems are on the streets who shouldn’t be. — Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015

Q: You’ve talked about wanting to keep the terror watch list but, under current law, individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?

TRUMP: We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have,

Q: But under current law people on the watch list are allowed to buy guns.

TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely. –ABC This Week 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 22, 2015

Donald_Trump_GunSo the NRA – an organization that is supposedly dedicated to preserving our Second Amendment rights – America’s First Freedom – endorsed a candidate who implied that the NRA is uncompromising and that Republicans are wrong not to bend on at least some restrictions.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who thinks it may be acceptable for a judge to confiscate the property of an individual with some nebulous concept of “mental health problems.”

The NRA endorsed a candidate who believes people placed on a secret no-fly list without due process should be relieved of their right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who has publicly voiced his support for an “assault weapons” ban and who wants a waiting period before anyone is allowed to make a constitutionally protected purchase. Of course, now he claims he no longer supports the ban on those scary black rifles. Just in time to run for President as a Republican.

Congrats, NRA. You’ve endorsed a flip-flopping, tyrannical weasel, who has hoodwinked a plurality of Republicans into supporting him, and you fell right in line with the rest of those who care more about “winning” than they do about the direction this country is taking.

You care more about defeating the evil Hillary than you do about endorsing someone who has zero respect for basic human rights and believes they should be subject to the whims of politicians.

America’s first freedom, indeed.

Nauseating.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail